In Chambers & Others v. Harrington & Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The contract in question was an agreement between the plaintiffs, Chambers and others, and the defendants, Harrington and another, to purchase a certain tract of land. The plaintiffs had paid the defendants a portion of the purchase price, but the defendants refused to convey the land to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, and that the parties had entered into the contract in good faith. The Court also found that the defendants had accepted the payment from the plaintiffs and had not repudiated the contract. Therefore, the Court held that the contract was binding on the parties and that the defendants were obligated to convey the land to the plaintiffs.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Chambers & Others v. Harrington & Another, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and disregarded a long-standing principle of equity. He argued that when two parties have entered into an agreement to settle a dispute, it should be enforced unless there is fraud or mistake involved. In this case, he believed that no such evidence existed and thus both parties were bound by their contract. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if one party was allowed to break their promise without consequence then it would undermine public confidence in contracts as well as encourage dishonesty among individuals who enter into agreements with each other. He concluded his dissent by stating that while courts may not always be able to enforce every contract they must at least attempt to do so whenever possible because it serves justice and promotes good faith between citizens of our country.